First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
What's the point of the mechanic if it's not being used? Using Inspiration is better because it's a mechanic that provides a benefit to the players using it.

It's a fair question. Here's the thing I'm wondering. If the people who don't use Inspiration are happy, and the people who use Inspiration are happy...why is it "better" to use Inspiration? What does it help the game to do? How does it improve play at the table? What are the people who aren't using it missing out on?

A rule has to justify it's existence. It has to add something to your gameplay. Or you won't use it (see, for instance, encumbrance). What is it that the design team is hoping to add to the gameplay? What effect do they want this to have at the table?

Because the Inspiration that you get from being a human or rolling a 20 isn't like the Inspiration you get from having a cool RP moment or engaging with your flaws. One rewards you for "being a human" or "rolling a 20." Do the designers want more humans? To subtly enhance PC's with the Extra Attack feature? The other rewards you for "playing your character well" or "bringing something interesting to the story." The designers there seem to want to reward performing your character in an interesting way and playing your PC as part of the story/world. Those are not the same functions for the rule.

It's similar to the dragonborn thing in that I don't understand the problem statement. What's "better?" Using a rule more isn't "better," intrinsically. Maybe the rule doesn't NEED to be used by every table. What are they trying to do with these changes? Other than sell us a new core book set, what are their goals?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Counter point. How would you convert a 3.5 wizard to 4E?
That's not a counter point. Just because it's much harder(or impossible) to build a 3.5 wizard in 4e, doesn't mean 3.5 was backwards compatible with 3.0. It just wasn't as bad as 4e. That's like saying a 747 is backwards compatible with a WWI fighter, because it's even less compatible with a zoo.
Again, you seem to equate "I have to do work" to "It isn't possible". Those aren't the same level of changes.
No. I equate having to to craptons of work on something that just plain doesn't work right due to drastic mechanics changes as meaning it's not backwards compatible. Again, not having the same level of changes as 4e does not make 3.5 backwards compatible with 3e.
 

Galandris

Foggy Bottom Campaign Setting Fan
It's a fair question. Here's the thing I'm wondering. If the people who don't use Inspiration are happy, and the people who use Inspiration are happy...why is it "better" to use Inspiration? What does it help the game to do? How does it improve play at the table? What are the people who aren't using it missing out on?

Characters who use Inspiration are better. Mechanically, they roll with advantage more often, so they are better at succeeding at the task they attempt. I think the "better" part was refering to the characters, not the rules, but I may be mistaken. They want to promote the use of what is, to them, an under-used feature to get advantage on rolls.
 

Aldarc

Legend
This is a really weird semantics argument. I view the updated ruleset as the same edition. It's much smaller of a change that any edition change from the past 20 years, so I really don't think it's a new edition. It would be "powercreep" compared to the 2014 content, which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing.

If they use the same basic ruleset with a few changes, its the same edition. If different versions of the same class can play at the same table without any major issues, the different rulesets are compatible, regardless of changes in the class's mechanics.
This shows you how perspectives differ. I've seen a number of D&D channels look at these changes and see them as being comparable to an edition change. These changes may seem small so far, but I suspect it be akin to a multiplicative effect. A bunch of small changes will feel much larger on the whole, a sort of gestalt effect.

To me, these changes so far look to be on the level of 3.0 to 3.5 or even 3.0 to PF1. PF1 has the "same basic ruleset" as 3.0, but there is a pretty big gulf between these two rulesets when played, and they are not super compatible for most tables. Your experiences may differ, but a lot of tables switched entirely to 3.5 from 3.0 and dumped the 3.0 materials as obsolete. Same when it came to 3.5 and PF1. This family of games with a similar ruleset may be backwards compatible on paper, but it's questionable whether they were in practice as far as how tables/groups treated the rulesets. This is because, IME, many groups don't like mixing and matching.
 

Galandris

Foggy Bottom Campaign Setting Fan
It would be fun if the spells were nerfed. The mechanics would match the tired trope of "sorcerers of old" being more powerful and advanced that the declining contemporary ones and casting the 2014 fireball would beat the 2024, d4-damage fireball.
 

This is a really weird semantics argument. I view the updated ruleset as the same edition. It's much smaller of a change that any edition change from the past 20 years, so I really don't think it's a new edition. It would be "powercreep" compared to the 2014 content, which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing.

If they use the same basic ruleset with a few changes, its the same edition. If different versions of the same class can play at the same table without any major issues, the different rulesets are compatible, regardless of changes in the class's mechanics.
On the flipside, you're using a really artificial and D&D-specific standard, i.e. "was the change as much as 2E to 3E, 3E to 4E, or 4E to 5E?".

D&D is remarkable in that through the last 22 years, it's had much bigger rules-changes in its editions than almost any RPG on the market. Most other RPGs go through a sort of incremental change, where the rules remain largely similar, but some specific bits are tweaked. They don't fundamentally change basic approaches in the way D&D editions did (for example, all those editions have different and incompatible skill systems, saving throw systems, attack systems, HP systems, etc.). I mean, if we look at the new Hunter: The Reckoning, like the basic way the rules work, the way a character is built, and so on is extremely similar to Vampire: The Masquerade 1E back in 1991 (the biggest change is a conceptual one, which is too fiddly to discuss here).

Even oWoD to nWoD, rules-wise, is a far smaller change than any D&D edition change from 2E to 3E onwards.

And if we look at the RPG market in general, easily 95% of RPGs which have an edition change have a change more like 1E to 2E. One of the few real counter-examples would be PF1 to PF2, I note.

The general RPG standard of "edition change" is pretty small, and the edition is used to make it clear to people that whilst the rules may be largely compatible, they're not identical.

WotC are effectively attempt to flip that on its head. Which is bold. They're making significant changes, which will likely leave the rules largely compatible, but instead of highlighting that and making it clear it's an edition change, WotC are trying to bury it, and making out that it's not, it's just a continuation. It's an interesting strategy.

Realistically, this is obviously an edition-change. Even what we have so far, without anything more, is outside the range of what 3.5E did. And there's going to be tons and tons more. If it doesn't exceed the changes from 1E to 2E I'll be shocked, and that means by any normal standard, it's an edition change. It's just a reversion to the RPG norm, rather than the huge and bold changes WotC made previously.
 

Galandris

Foggy Bottom Campaign Setting Fan
Hasbro, after a long pondering, validated the backward compatibility strategy.

Chess-and-checkers-on-the-same-board-768x512.jpg


White starts with a full house.
 

MarkB

Legend
It's a fair question. Here's the thing I'm wondering. If the people who don't use Inspiration are happy, and the people who use Inspiration are happy...why is it "better" to use Inspiration? What does it help the game to do? How does it improve play at the table? What are the people who aren't using it missing out on?
I'm not happy. Inspiration is a thing that I set out intending to include when running games, but almost always neglect to actually award because I don't think of it in the moment. And as a player I tend to hold onto it until I forget I have it, because I don't know when more will be incoming.

This new rule may be less flavoursome, but it solves both of those issues.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I'm not happy. Inspiration is a thing that I set out intending to include when running games, but almost always neglect to actually award because I don't think of it in the moment. And as a player I tend to hold onto it until I forget I have it, because I don't know when more will be incoming.

This new rule may be less flavoursome, but it solves both of those issues.

Exactly this.
 

Sniff test for edition change: when the new rules come out, if I’m using those, will I still say I’m playing 5e DnD?

Looks like no, so I’ll think of it as a new edition.

Incidentally, I get the impression that a number of people will stick with 5e, but interestingly it seems most if those won’t use Tasha’s optional rules except for rangers and maybe some subclasses.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
RE: 5.5e vs. 6e

If I'm using 1-2 or 3-3.5 as a reference for change, this feels like a 6e. If I'm using 2-3 or 3.5-4 or 4-5 it feels like a 5.5.

Given that most players aren't old as dirt like some of us, I think I'd vote 5.5, and expect a bunch of older players on here to defiantly use 6.
 

plisnithus8

Explorer
Not sure what you're referring too since I just finished the video and posted about 5 minutes later - I don't think my memory is that bad (yet).

Well he talks about recharge for dragons breath as a special attack. But that a bugbear with a club just shouldn't have a scary or exciting feature, just a standard 12 damage every time. Unless every monster gets a recharge/encounter ability - which could be cool.
But man, this isn't looking like my teacup the more I'm learning.
Having lower level monsters do less unpredictable damage might be an answer to tier 1 PC death.
 


The Video goes over some interesting points:
Backgrounds are now "Custom default" with your choice of stat boosts and a level 1 feat.
Feats are now separated into levels, level 1 feats don't have stats, higher level feats can have a +1 bonus for a stat in order to soften the blow of having to pick between ASIs and a Feat.
Crits are a player only thing, with spells not being able to crit, effectively Martial only.
The spell lists are going to be split up into Arcane, Divine, and Primal. Classes will pick one of the lists and have additional spells added to their lists.
Races are going to get new options.
Inspiration is going to be reworked so that the DM doesn't have to remember it all the time.
They really need to rewrite Criticals and clarify things, since it's such a drastic move from 5e. Is this meant as only damage that is doubled being the actual weapon dice and nothing else? No smites, no sneak attack, etc.?
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
This shows you how perspectives differ. I've seen a number of D&D channels look at these changes and see them as being comparable to an edition change. These changes may seem small so far, but I suspect it be akin to a multiplicative effect. A bunch of small changes will feel much larger on the whole, a sort of gestalt effect.

To me, these changes so far look to be on the level of 3.0 to 3.5 or even 3.0 to PF1. PF1 has the "same basic ruleset" as 3.0, but there is a pretty big gulf between these two rulesets when played, and they are not super compatible for most tables. Your experiences may differ, but a lot of tables switched entirely to 3.5 from 3.0 and dumped the 3.0 materials as obsolete. Same when it came to 3.5 and PF1. This family of games with a similar ruleset may be backwards compatible on paper, but it's questionable whether they were in practice as far as how tables/groups treated the rulesets. This is because, IME, many groups don't like mixing and matching.
You see, I learned D&D in an environment where people were we mixing and matching 3.0 with 3.5, with performance practices based in 2E. I really don't think it is abnormal. And, this test is designed to test out mixing and matching the rules.
 

MarkB

Legend
They really need to rewrite Criticals and clarify things, since it's such a drastic move from 5e. Is this meant as only damage that is doubled being the actual weapon dice and nothing else? No smites, no sneak attack, etc.?
Yes - weapon or unarmed strike dice only. Plus, if you're rolled a 20, you gain Inspiration.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
On the flipside, you're using a really artificial and D&D-specific standard, i.e. "was the change as much as 2E to 3E, 3E to 4E, or 4E to 5E?".

D&D is remarkable in that through the last 22 years, it's had much bigger rules-changes in its editions than almost any RPG on the market. Most other RPGs go through a sort of incremental change, where the rules remain largely similar, but some specific bits are tweaked. They don't fundamentally change basic approaches in the way D&D editions did (for example, all those editions have different and incompatible skill systems, saving throw systems, attack systems, HP systems, etc.). I mean, if we look at the new Hunter: The Reckoning, like the basic way the rules work, the way a character is built, and so on is extremely similar to Vampire: The Masquerade 1E back in 1991 (the biggest change is a conceptual one, which is too fiddly to discuss here).

Even oWoD to nWoD, rules-wise, is a far smaller change than any D&D edition change from 2E to 3E onwards.

And if we look at the RPG market in general, easily 95% of RPGs which have an edition change have a change more like 1E to 2E. One of the few real counter-examples would be PF1 to PF2, I note.

The general RPG standard of "edition change" is pretty small, and the edition is used to make it clear to people that whilst the rules may be largely compatible, they're not identical.

WotC are effectively attempt to flip that on its head. Which is bold. They're making significant changes, which will likely leave the rules largely compatible, but instead of highlighting that and making it clear it's an edition change, WotC are trying to bury it, and making out that it's not, it's just a continuation. It's an interesting strategy.

Realistically, this is obviously an edition-change. Even what we have so far, without anything more, is outside the range of what 3.5E did. And there's going to be tons and tons more. If it doesn't exceed the changes from 1E to 2E I'll be shocked, and that means by any normal standard, it's an edition change. It's just a reversion to the RPG norm, rather than the huge and bold changes WotC made previously.
Yeah, and not just an RPG norm, but a general pulishing norm. "Edition" is a term of art in publishing, and what WotC has done with Edition over the years is a serious abuse of terminology. 3.5 constituted a new Edition by general publishing standards, as did 4E Essentials.
 
Last edited:

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
Characters who use Inspiration are better. Mechanically, they roll with advantage more often, so they are better at succeeding at the task they attempt. I think the "better" part was refering to the characters, not the rules, but I may be mistaken. They want to promote the use of what is, to them, an under-used feature to get advantage on rolls.
An interesting wrinkle here is that this kind of removes the distinction between "rolling with advantage" and "Inspiration."

There are a lot of ways to get characters to roll with advantage. If the designers' goal is to have more advantage in the game, there's ways to address that without bringing Inspiration into the mix. If that is the designers' goal, personally, I'm a little iffy on it. I don't think that what my D&D game has been missing is "more rolls with advantage." We're pretty good on that, honestly.

Inspiration, however, is a horse of a slightly different color. That mechanic - the DM hands out a player-activated Advantage for good RP - is under-utilized and potentially cool. The reason it's cool, IMO, is because it encourages good RP. If the designers want more good RP, then encouraging Inspiration more is a good idea, and I am on board that train, but these mechanics don't really work toward that goal. Being a human or rolling a 20 aren't things that are related to interesting character or story moments. They're parts of your build or out of your control, not things you decide to do during play to have an effect.
 

MarkB

Legend
An interesting wrinkle here is that this kind of removes the distinction between "rolling with advantage" and "Inspiration."

There are a lot of ways to get characters to roll with advantage. If the designers' goal is to have more advantage in the game, there's ways to address that without bringing Inspiration into the mix. If that is the designers' goal, personally, I'm a little iffy on it. I don't think that what my D&D game has been missing is "more rolls with advantage." We're pretty good on that, honestly.
True for attacks, and for some ability checks. It's harder to come by for saving throws, though (the new gnome notwithstanding).
 

but these mechanics don't really work toward that goal
Quite right. It's particularly an issue because of having to use Inspiration beforehand, which as you say, overlaps hard with Advantage, and doesn't feel very rewarding or exciting.

There are a million things they could let you buy with Inspiration that would be more interesting. Hell, being Take 10 with Inspiration would be amazing.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top